Daniel Keys v. Nancy A. Berryhill
679 F. App'x 477
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Daniel Keys applied for SSDI and SSI alleging disability from 2008 due to degenerative disc disease, migraines, rheumatoid arthritis, rotator-cuff tear, ACL injury, carpal tunnel symptoms, and depression/adjustment/impulse-control disorders.
- He underwent multiple spinal surgeries (2002–2012) and had MRIs showing progressive but largely mild-to-minimal cervical and lumbar stenosis/narrowing in 2010–2012; treatment records showed periods of improvement after surgery and episodes of ongoing pain treated with injections and medications.
- Exams showed some hand/wrist complaints (carpal-tunnel signs at times), shoulder tendinitis, and prior right-ACL tear with later repair; rheumatologic evaluations diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis with reported gait/ambulation limits at times.
- State-agency examiners and reviewers assessed Keys as capable of sedentary-to-light or light work with limited postural activities; Dr. Onamusi (examining) found fine-motor function intact; non-examining reviewers (Drs. Brill and Sands) recommended light-work RFC without specific upper-extremity limits.
- The ALJ credited the agency doctors and Dr. Onamusi, found Keys capable of light work with occasional postural limitations (no upper-extremity or concentration limits), and denied benefits; the Appeals Council denied review and the magistrate affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by giving great weight to non-examining reviewers who did not consider later MRIs and a 2012 surgery report | Keys: Later MRIs and surgery reports would have produced more restrictive RFC and reviewers should have reconsidered | Agency/ALJ: No evidence those records would change reviewers’ conclusions; ALJ may rely on reviewers absent showing of material change | Held: No error—Keys failed to show the omitted records would have changed opinions, so ALJ permissibly relied on reviewers’ opinions |
| Whether ALJ improperly ignored rheumatoid arthritis and rotator-cuff tear in giving weight to reviewers | Keys: Reviewers did not explicitly address these conditions, so their opinions are incomplete | ALJ: She considered those conditions via Dr. Onamusi’s exam and discussed them in decision; regs permit ALJ to consider all impairments in combination | Held: No error—ALJ adequately accounted for these conditions through the examining physician and her own analysis |
| Whether ALJ failed to account for upper-extremity limitations (carpal tunnel, arthritis) in RFC | Keys: Objective and subjective evidence shows intermittent hand impairment requiring limits | ALJ: Records show inconsistent carpal-tunnel findings, treating notes of improvement, and examining doctor found fine fingering intact | Held: No error—ALJ’s discussion of carpal tunnel and arthritis supports omission of upper-extremity limits |
| Whether ALJ failed to account for concentration limitations from pain (mental-overlay) | Keys: Pain impairs concentration and ALJ relied improperly on lack of objective findings to reject testimony | ALJ: Rejected concentration limitation based on inconsistencies between Keys’s hearing testimony and his contemporaneous reports of improvement; consideration adhered to required factors | Held: No error—ALJ permissibly discounted testimony for stated inconsistencies and excluded a concentration limit |
Key Cases Cited
- Scheck v. Astrue, 357 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2004) (ALJ need not indefinitely update the record each time claimant receives treatment)
- Enstrand v. Colvin, 788 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must consider combined effect of all impairments)
- Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may consider inconsistencies between hearing testimony and medical records when evaluating credibility)